China Flanker Thread II

[MastanKhan]

So the question is why after two decades has China not brought it's own Flankers up to Russian or Western standard ? Where has all that money and investment gone ?

Hi,

The answer would be that china's fighter program has come a long ways where it was 15 years ago----. The leaps and bounds it has taken are phenominal but then so has the adversary's fighter program as well.

The reason it wants to buy the SU35 is to fill in the hole at the top tier. You all know what is happening in south china seas.

If you don't understand the importance---here is some information---in 2012 Pakistan went to china to get some aid----the chinese told the paks / Zardari and co---go scr-ew yourself---we ain't giving you nothing---we give and you loot and plunder it.

Fast forward 2014/15-----a 46 billion dollars investment in 10 + years----the roadwork and railroad work from Gwadar port to up country at an extremely fast pace.

A force of upwards of 20000 troops in process of being trained for the port and surrounding areas----. Land close to 5000 acres already given to chinese for an airport development++++.

Seemingly---for china---the threat level has increased to where it is getting very uncomfortable.

So---the SU35's are not for a lack of---but are in addition to---.

My apologies for off topic---if it is.

 

[asif iqbal]

Well I was referring to latest Chinese PLAAF flankers

The J15, J16, J11D and even the J11B/BS

The very latest units, surely by now they should have caught up

And 24 units will never surely fill any combat gap in PLAAF, 24 units is only one single sqaudron how does this bridge the gap until J20 enters service

It's like me saying for now I will buy a bike to get to London (I live in Scotland) then this will be a stop gap until I buy my new car

 

[Blitzo]

Well I was referring to latest Chinese PLAAF flankers

The J15, J16, J11D and even the J11B/BS

The very latest units, surely by now they should have caught up

And 24 units will never surely fill any combat gap in PLAAF, 24 units is only one single sqaudron how does this bridge the gap until J20 enters service

It's like me saying for now I will buy a bike to get to London (I live in Scotland) then this will be a stop gap until I buy my new car

I don't think we can understand yet what the article is trying to say and whether it is even reliable (to be honest it is making a lot of detailed claims which may be a sign of BSing), to reach a conclusion where we can ask.

I would be surprised if the SAC built flankers did not have much longer service lives than the original flankers bought from Russia

 

[b787]

.

I would be surprised if the SAC built flankers did not have much longer service lives than the original flankers bought from Russia

it depends in what variant, the early Su-27Bs were built in the 1980s, the modern Su-30s and Su-34/35s are built with newer technologies, so it is hard to ascertain the modern Su-35 and Su-30s are not built with high quality standards.

It might be possible that a modern J-11 built in 2015 has better fuselage manufacturing technology than a Su-27 built in 1992, but if it is better than a Su-30SM well that is hard to tell

 

[Blitzo]

it depends in what variant, the early Su-27Bs were built in the 1980s, the modern Su-30s and Su-34/35s are built with newer technologies, so it is hard to ascertain the modern Su-35 and Su-30s are not built with high quality standards.

It might be possible that a modern J-11 built in 2015 has better fuselage manufacturing technology than a Su-27 built in 1992

I was talking about initial Su-27s imported in the 90s -- note I said "original flankers"...

I would have expected J-11Bs manufactured beginning in the late 2000s to have sought to improve things like airframe life, compared to those original flankers from the 90s.

 

[Air Force Brat]

I assume you meant 'old'?

I think that is down to learning costs.

When the PLAAF first got Flankers, I think their pilots were not used to such large and powerful birds, and flew them like J7/Mig21s too much.

It was widely reported that serval early Su27SKs had to be rebuilt, with a couple written off entirely because of excessive strain on the airframes.

That was something that always stuck in my mind, as I would have expected the pilots' to reach their limits before the airframe was overtaxed.

My interpretation and understanding of the situation was that either early Russian FBW wasn't advanced as western FBW and/or didn't have the kinds of automatic safety limits as western fighter jets. Meaning a western bird's FBW would not allow a pilot to 'depart' his plane or push it beyond its designed tolerances, whereas a Russian FBW probably give the pilot more freedom to pull extreme manuevers.

The Chinese, who would have been introduced to FBW through the French, Israelis, Americans and British, probably expected the Russian version worked the same as western stuff, and assumed that if the FBW computer allowed it, a manuever must be safe.

Obviously, you can get better performance by cutting into the safety margins, but that comes at a price, and I would be willing to bet that it was a while until the issue was discovered. Which means most or all of the early Su27s were probably subjected to significantly more stresses and strains then designed for, which would have significantly reduced their useful lives.

That's why you have some of them being retired after only 17 years. Given the compromised structural life of those early Su27s, the decision to not waste money upgrading them would make a lot more sense.

To blame the poor service life on the pilots is quite an extension of logic and reason, I expect Chinese Flankers have a very robust airframe. Russian aircraft of the 80s, 90s, on in to the new century had some rather severe quality control issues, and engines had lower service life than would have been expected, even for Russian engines??

I recall several instances where countries returned or attempted to return Mig-29s??? In fact the Mig 29s that I have had the opportunity to lay hands on? exhibit some of those same symptoms.

The Flanker is a very large airframe, to be flung around as it often is in the Russian demos, and you will NEVER see any USAF or NAVY aircraft treated that way in flight demos? This leads those less aware of airframes, cracking, bending and breaking the impression that it can't be broken and nothing could be further from the truth. Witness the T-50 and her ills in the early series, which has now been redesigned, or if that offends your sensibilities look to the F-35 which had several areas of cracking and "Monkey Motion" causing excessive fatigue early on. They will require rebuilding as well??

So the Chinese Flankers have been re-engineered, using heavier structure where the cracking occurred on the Russian birds, and composites where appropriate to reduce weight and hence "LOAD" on the airframe. I would not hesitate to take a J-15 for a daily ride, it is no doubt very well made, I believe it is likely up to Western standards or very close to that in regard to tolerances and pride of workmanship!

 

[Franklin]

I'm getting confused by this discussion. Are we talking about the service life of the engines or are we talking about the service life of the airframe ? If its the engines then it is expected. Even if its the airframe that should not be completly unexpected since Russia has more experience building high performence jets than China. You cannot compare the airframe of the SU-35 to the SU-27SK. The former is the cutting edge of Russian technology the latter is a monkey model that came 20 years earlier.

 

[b787]

To blame the poor service life on the pilots is quite an extension of logic and reason, I expect Chinese Flankers have a very robust airframe. Russian aircraft of the 80s, 90s, on in to the new century had some rather severe quality control issues, and engines had lower service life than would have been expected, even for Russian engines??

In my opinion i think is not the nationality but the year and variant, the F-15 for example has already aircraft that have been retired in the USAF, all the F-15As and F-15Bs.

Russia has already retired some Flankers and Fulcrums too, for example Russia inherited around 800 MiG-29s, nowadays there are only 250 operational, also Russia had around 600 Su-27s after the collapse of the USSR, nowadays has only 350 at the most.

I mean you can not expect that aircraft built in the 1980s can be still in service, most aircraft operated now are the latest batches of MiG-29s and F-15s
The Su-27/J-11 built in the early 1990s well they are 25 years old.

 

[b787]

I'm getting confused by this discussion. Are we talking about the service life of the engines or are we talking about the service life of the airframe ? If its the engines then it is expected. Even if its the airframe that should not be completly unexpected since Russia has more experience building high performence jets than China. You cannot compare the airframe of the SU-35 to the SU-27SK. The former is the cutting edge of Russian technology the latter is a monkey model that came 20 years earlier.

the article does not make sense, it is obvious old aircraft built by the Soviet Union are not as advanced as modern aircraft

Even old Soviet built Su-27s have been retired in Russia, in 1992, they were advanced and China wanted them, but now like any thing entropy turns things into old machines

and the same is the F-15 in the USAF, is not that the F-15 last forever, it is simply both jets get old and turn to rust

it is aging, simply like that entropy

 

[vesicles]

the article does not make sense, it is obvious old aircraft built by the Soviet Union are not as advanced as modern aircraft

Even old Soviet built Su-27s have been retired in Russia, in 1992, they were advanced and China wanted them, but now like any thing entropy turns things into old machines

and the same is the F-15 in the USAF, is not that the F-15 last forever, it is simply both jets get old and turn to rust

it is aging, simply like that entropy

I think what many here have been saying is that old Su-27's were not as durable as their western counterparts. No one is saying that western planes don't get old...

Also, what does aging have anything to do with entropy? Aging is more of a kinetic parameter (something to do with time), while entropy is thermodynamics. And please don't tell me "things falling apart is increasing entropy"...